Most voters don’t know what agents are. Many of my coworkers in tech can’t even define “agent” correctly.
So no, the world is likely not suddenly agreeing with you about “jagged performance.”
That's my attempt at a universal definition for technical and non-technical users. How does it compare?
There is growing public sentiment about AI & Tech, but per exit polls that wasn't a Top 3 reason swing voters went blue (Economy, Wars, Corruption). Today's market correction is being driven by the majority in both houses of congress flipping blue. Trump and most Republican legislators were seen as broadly supporting AI / Tech and most Democrats are seen as being less supportive.
AI / Tech-friendly legislation is now likely to face a slower, more difficult path through committee and passage. IMHO, the actual impact of the political change is nowhere near 5% of company value, but outsized swings tend to happen on any adverse news when the market is already fearful they've bought into a high-priced bubble far in advance of actual earnings.
The Trump administration was expected to invest massively into AI, and money invested into AI is effectively free money for AI company shareholders, that free money is priced in the stocks. With the change in direction, investments are expected to be less, which means less free money, and therefore less valuable stocks.
Here is the simplified version:
Let's say I have a company worth 1 billion dollars, publicly traded, 10 million stocks worth $100 each. I get promised $100M from the state (aka taxpayers), shareholders estimate there is about 50% chance I will actually get the money: $100M * 50% / 10M = $5. It means the stocks are now worth $5 more, so $105.
Now the government has changed, and gone are my chances to get that money, so the sock is back to $100.